Tripura High Court
Sri Anil Tripura vs The State Of Tripura ----Respondent on 5 April, 2022
Author: Arindam Lodh
Bench: Arindam Lodh
Page 1
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Crl. A. 4/2020
1. Sri Anil Tripura
son of late Samsing Tripura, resident of North Bijoypur (Buchimogpara),
P.S. Sabroom, District- South Tripura
2. Smt. Supriya Mog (Tripura)
wife of Sri Anil Tripura, resident of North Bijoypur (Buchimogpara),
P.S. Sabroom, District- South Tripura
----Appellants
Versus
The State of Tripura ----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. A. Acharjee, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Ghosh, Addl. PP
Date of hearing & delivery
of Judgment & Order : 05.04.2022
Whether fit for reporting : Yes
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
JUDGMENT(ORAL)
This appeal arises out of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 26.11.2019 passed in connection with case No. S.T. (Type-I) 31 of 2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Belonia, whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge had convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and sentenced them to suffer R.I. for 3 (three) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, with default stipulation.
2. On the basis of a complaint lodged by the complainant Anil Tripura, one of the appellants, that is, the husband of appellant no.2, the Officer-in- Charge of Sabroom police station had registered the present case. It was Page 2 complained that his wife had killed her daughter by hacking "dao" (a sharp cutting instrument used in almost every household) blow. It was also stated in the complaint that initially the complainant had believed the statement of his wife, the appellant no.2 that their daughter died out of injury caused by a "dao" blow while she was playing on that very moment. She was taken to Manu Bazaar hospital in a state of bleeding injuries where the doctor declared her as dead. Thereafter, he has taken his daughter to home, and after going to home detected a hole on the ground and buried her. Lateron, the police came to know about the incident and came to their house and recovered the dead body. Thereafter, his wife admitted the fact of the incident and stated that out of altercation with him, his wife (appellant no. 2) could not control anger and dealt a blow on the head of their minor daughter, as a result of which their daughter sustained cut injuries on her head and succumbed to the said injuries.
3. The said complaint was registered as Sabroom PS case no. 54 of 2017 under Section 302 IPC. The matter was investigated by the investigating officer and after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused-appellants. At the commencement of trial, the learned Sessions Judge had framed charges against the convict-appellants, which are as under:
"Firstly, that, on 06.09.2017 in the morning at around 9.30 am at Uttar Bijoypur under PS-Sabroom you committed murder intentionally causing the death of Piya Tripura and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of this Court of Sessions; Secondly, that on the said date, time and place you knowingly or having reason to believe that you caused the dead body of Piya disappeared by burring the same and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of this Court of Sessions."
Page 3
4. During trial, the prosecution to establish the charge had adduced 7 (seven) witnesses. After closure of recording evidences, the convict appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied all the allegations levelled against them by the prosecution witnesses since, according to the appellants, those were false. After hearing arguments and on examining the evidences and materials on record, the learned Sessions Judge had acquitted the convict-appellants from the charge framed against them under Section 302 IPC, but, convicted and sentenced them for committing offence punishable under Section 201 IPC. Hence, this appeal before this court.
5. Heard Mr. A. Acharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Additional PP appearing for the respondent- State.
6. Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charges levelled against the convict-appellants. Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel has further submitted that it is settled proposition of law that when the accused persons are acquitted from the charge of committing principal offence, then, they cannot be convicted for the offence connected thereto with the principal offence. Moreso, from the evidences of the witnesses, according to learned counsel for the appellants, the charge for committing offence under Section 201 IPC has not been proved.
Page 4 Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel has further contended that the prosecution has failed to discharge the liability to establish the fact that the appellants despite their requisite knowledge and intention caused disappearance of evidence and gave false information to the police in respect of the offences committed by them.
7. On the other hand, Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Additional PP has submitted that, it is the solemn duty of this court being the highest court in the State to render justice to its citizens. According to learned Additional PP, justice not only be done, but, it is also seemed to be done, and it is a case to remit the matter back to the trial court for retrial of the case. Mr. Ghosh, has submitted, in reply to a query made by this court as to whether the State has preferred any appeal challenging the acquittal of the appellants from the charges levelled against them for committing offence under Section 302 IPC. Learned Additional PP, has informed this court that no such appeal has been preferred before this court.
8. I have considered the submissions for learned counsel appearing for the parties. I have perused the evidences and materials on record and the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge.
9. It is observed by the learned trial court while acquitting the convict- appellants from the charge levelled against them under Section 302 IPC that the charge of murder framed against them has not been established beyond Page 5 reasonable doubt. Having thus observed, the learned trial court had acquitted the convict-appellants from the charge levelled against them for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. However, learned trial Judge came to a finding that the accused-appellants being the parents of the child (3 years) had concealed the entire facts to the police and convicted and sentenced the appellants under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC.
10. Before I advert to the merits of the findings and decision of the learned trial Judge, I like to have a look to section 201 IPC. It reads as under:
"201. Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.--Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false;
if a capital offence.--shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine;
if punishable with imprisonment for life.--and if the offence is punishable with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine;
if punishable with less than ten years' imprisonment.--and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both".
11. On minute reading of section 201 IPC, it appears that to establish an offence punishable under Section 201 IPC, the prosecution has to establish the following ingredients:
(i) an offence has been committed;
(ii) the accused knew or had reason to believe that such offence has been committed;
Page 6
(iii) the accused caused disappearance of the evidence thereof;
(iv) the accused gave false information in respect thereof;
(v) the accused knew or had reason to believe the same to be false;
(vi) the accused did so with intention to screen the offender from legal punishment;
12. In V.L. Tresa vs. State of Kerala, reported in (2001) 3 SCC 549 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 12 has discussed the essential ingredients of the offences under Section 201 IPC, which are as under:
"12. Having regard to the language used, the following ingredients emerge:
(I) committal of an offence;
(II) person charged with the offence under Section 201 must have the knowledge or reason to believe that the main offence has been committed; (III) person charged with the offence under Section 201 IPC should have caused disappearance of evidence or should have given false information regarding the main offence; and (IV) the act should have been done with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment".
13. In Dinesh Kumar Kalidas Patel vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 313 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed the law to convict the person accused of convicting offence under Section 201 IPC, which may be reproduced here-in-below, for convenience, in extenso:
"8. In Palvinder Kaur (supra), this Court held as follows:
"14. In order to establish the charge under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, it is essential to prove that an offence has been committed, mere suspicion that it has been committed is not sufficient, that the accused knew or had reason to believe that such offence had been committed and with the requisite knowledge and with the intent to screen the offender from legal punishment causes the evidence thereof to disappear or gives false information respecting such offences knowing or having reason to believe the same to be false". AIR 1952 SC 354 AIR 1953 SC 131 AIR 1968 SC 829 The conviction in this case was ultimately set aside on the aforementioned legal position and the facts.
9. The Constitution Bench decision in Kalawati (supra) may not be of much assistance in this case since the facts are completely different. The co-accused was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC for the main offence, and in the Page 7 peculiar facts and circumstances of that case, this Court deemed it fit to convict Kalawati only under Section 201 of the IPC.
10. Relying on Palvinder Kaur (supra), this Court in Suleman Rehiman (supra), made the following observation:
"6. The conviction of Appellant 2 under Section 201 IPC depends on the sustainability of the conviction of Appellant 1 under Section 304-A IPC. If Appellant 1 was rightly convicted under that provision, the conviction of Appellant 2 under Section 201 IPC on the facts found cannot be challenged. But on the other hand, if the conviction of Appellant 1 under Section 304-A IPC cannot be sustained, then, the second appellants conviction under Section 201 IPC will have to be set aside, because to establish the charge under Section 201, the prosecution must first prove that an offence had been committed not merely a suspicion that it might have been committed and that the accused knowing or having reason to believe that such an offence had been committed, and with the intent to screen the offender from legal punishment, had caused the evidence thereof to disappear. The proof of the commission of an offence is an essential requisite for bringing home the offence under Section 201 IPC see the decision of this Court in Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab". It is necessary to note that the reason for acquittal under Section 201 in the above case was that there was no evidence to show that the rash and negligent act of appellant No.1 caused the death of the deceased. Hence, the court acquitted appellant No. 2 under Section 201. The observation at paragraph 6 has to be viewed and analysed in that background.
11. In Ram Saran Mahto and another v. State of Bihar4, this Court discussed Kalawati (supra) and Palvinder Kaur (supra). It has been held at paragraphs-13 to 15 that conviction under the main offence is not necessary to convict the offender under Section 201 of the IPC. To quote:
"13. It is not necessary that the offender himself should have been found guilty of the main offence for the purpose of convicting him of offence under Section 201. Nor is it absolutely necessary that somebody else should have been found guilty of the main offence. Nonetheless, it is imperative that the prosecution should have established two premises. The first is that an offence has been committed and the second is that the accused knew about it or he had reasons to believe the commission of that offence. Then and then alone the prosecution can succeed, provided the remaining postulates of the offence are also established. (1999) 9 SCC 486
14. The above position has been well stated by a three-Judge Bench of this Court way back in 1952, in Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab:
In order to establish the charge under Section 201, Penal Code, it is essential to prove that an offence has been committed, mere suspicion that it has been committed is not sufficient that the accused knew or had reason to believe that such offence had been committed and with the requisite knowledge and with the intent to screen the offender from legal punishment causes the evidence thereof to disappear or gives false information respecting such offences knowing or having reason to believe the same to be false".
15. It is well to remind that the Bench gave a note of caution that the court should safeguard itself against the danger of basing its conclusion on suspicions however strong they may be. In Kalawati v. State of H.P a Constitution Bench of this Court has, no doubt, convicted an accused under Section 201 IPC even though he was acquitted of the offence under Section 302. But the said course was adopted by this Court after entering the finding that another accused had committed the Page 8 murder and the appellant destroyed the evidence of it with full knowledge thereof. In a later decision in Nathu v. State of U.P. this Court has repeated the caution in the following words: (SCC p. 575, para 1) Before a conviction under Section 201 can be recorded, it must be shown to the satisfaction of the court that the accused knew or had reason to believe that an offence had been committed and having got this knowledge, tried to screen the offender by disposing of the dead body".
14. Again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after taking into consideration its earlier decisions rendered in Kalawati (supra), Palvinder Kaur (supra), Suleman Rehiman (supra), V.L. Tresa (supra), had discussed the essential ingredients for conviction under Section 201 IPC in the case of Sukhram vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2007) 7 SCC 502, where at para 18, it was held that:
"18. The first paragraph of the section contains the postulates for constituting the offence while the remaining three paragraphs prescribe three different tiers of punishments depending upon the degree of offence in each situation. To bring home an offence under Section 201 IPC, the ingredients to be established are: (i) committal of an offence; (ii) person charged with the offence under Section 201 must have the knowledge or reason to believe that an offence has been committed; (iii) person charged with the said offence should have caused disappearance of evidence; and (iv) the act should have been done with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment or with that intention he should have given information respecting the offence, which he knew or believed to be false. It is plain that the intent to screen the offender committing an offence must be the primary and sole aim of the accused. It hardly needs any emphasis that in order to bring home an offence under Section 201 IPC, a mere suspicion is not sufficient. There must be on record cogent evidence to prove that the accused knew or had information sufficient to lead him to believe that the offence had been committed and that the accused has caused the evidence to disappear in order to screen the offender, known or unknown. In Sou Vijaya @ Baby v. State of Maharashtra7, though this Court held that the decision in V.L. Tresa (supra) was of no assistance to the State in the particular facts, it re- iterated that there is no quarrel with the legal principle that notwithstanding acquittal with reference to the offence under Section 302 IPC, conviction under Section 201 is permissible, in a given case". (2003) 8 SCC 296
15. Furthermore, in Dinesh Kumar (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that a charge under Section 201 IPC can be maintained Page 9 independently and conviction and sentence may be recorded, in case the prosecution is able to establish all the essential ingredients required to bring home the charge under Section 201 IPC. It was observed thus:
"14. The decisions in Sou Vijaya (supra) and V.L. Tresa (supra) were noticed in State of Karnataka v. Madesha [(2007) 7 SCC 35].
While the appeal of the State was dismissed, this Court in unmistakeable terms held that:
"9. It is to be noted that there can be no dispute that Section 201 would have application even if the main offence is not established in view of what has been stated in V.L. Tresa and Sou. Vijaya cases..."
15. Thus, the law is well-settled that a charge under Section 201 of the IPC can be independently laid and conviction maintained also, in case the prosecution is able to establish that an offence had been committed, the person charged with the offence had the knowledge or the reason to believe that the offence had been committed, the said person has caused disappearance of evidence and such act of disappearance has been done with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment. Mere suspicion is not sufficient, it must be proved that the accused knew or had a reason to believe that the offence has been committed and yet he caused the evidence to disappear so as to screen the offender. The offender may be either himself or any other person. (2007) 7 SCC 35"
16. In view of the above principles, as enunciated by the Apex Court, I find no merit in the submissions of Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellants that a person cannot be convicted under Section 201 IPC, in case, the accused is discharged of the charge of committing principal offence. To further clarify the above legal proposition, it is stated herein that an accused can be convicted under Section 201 IPC independently, even if, he is acquitted from the charge of committing offence i.e. the principal offence being the same not proved.
17. Having thus analysed the legal position, it would be apposite to revert to the factual matrix of the instant case to see whether the conviction of the Page 10 appellants in the facts and circumstances of the case under Section 201 IPC could be sustained.
18. In the instant case, after perusal of the judgment, it is seen that the learned trial court, at para 14 observed as under:
"[14] In the instant case the charge under Sec. 302 IPC cannot be proved against the accused persons as neither the medical officer in his evidence has specifically stated that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature nor in the PM report, marked exhibit-2, made it clear that the injury of the deceased was homicidal. In the PM report medical officer only mentioned that the cause of death was penetrating head injury by moderate heavy sharp weapon over right parietal region of the head and evidence of the medical officer simply shows that he conducted PM examination and PM report was prepared by Dr. Nirmalendu Das and he identified the PM report as prepared by Nirmalendu Das as exhibit-2. Regarding contents of the PM report and the findings, the medical officer did not say anything. This court is also not a medical expert. No other witnesses have suggested anything regarding the death of the child. So, I came to the conclusion that section 302 IPC is not proved as against the accused persons."
19. While convicting the appellants under Section 201 IPC, the learned trial court had observed that "the circumstance shows that though the accused persons might not had any intention to cause the death of the deceased but either in sudden provocation or in an intoxicate condition or by some other acts the accused persons caused the injury to the child for which the child expired and as such they wanted to conceal the said incident. So, there is a clear evidence that the accused persons have committed the offence punishable under Sec. 201 read with Sec. 34 of IPC. Hence, I convict the accused persons."
20. A bare perusal of the above observation of the learned trial court, it comes to fore that even the learned trial Judge was not able to come to a Page 11 definite conclusion as to how the child was murdered or that he was at all murdered or either of the appellants had murdered him. He had arrayed some probabalities under which circumstances the child could be murdered. I am afraid of such proposition of the learned trial court, because it is trite law and established principle of criminal jurisprudence that each and every offence and the circumstances under which the alleged offence is committed have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. There is no room for convicting or sentencing a person on the basis of suspicion. Bearing in mind the principle as laid down in the case of Palvinder Kaur (supra) and Dinesh Kumar (supra), in the instant case, it is found that the doctor who conducted post mortem examination over the body of the deceased could not come to a definite conclusion about the nature of offence as to whether it was homicidal or not. The learned trial court also came to a finding that there was no evidence that either of the accused persons or the accused persons together had killed the deceased.
21. From the nature of the complaint, as alleged by Anil Tripura, father of the deceased, it is evident that, initially, he believed the statement of his wife and buried the body of their deceased daughter. From this circumstance, it is not clear that he having full knowledge of the role of his wife that she herself killed their daughter, intentionally to save his wife from the charge of murder had buried his daughter in his house itself concealing the fact as tried to be projected by the prosecution. It transpires from the evidences that the police Page 12 came to the spot and informed the appellants that they had been informed that the convict-appellants had killed their daughter, and ultimately, those informations were found to be without any foundational materials thereof. In this situation, the learned trial court has committed serious error in interpreting the ingredients required to establish offence committed under Section 201 IPC. As such, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial court convicting the appellants under Section 201 IPC cannot be sustained.
22. In Palvinder Kaur (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed and held thus:
"The result, therefore, is that we are constrained to hold that there is no material, direct or indirect, for the finding reached by the High Court that the death of Jaspal was caused by the administration of potassium cyanide. If we believe the defence version his death was the result of an accident. If that version is disbelieved, then there is no proof as to the cause of his death. The method and manner in which the dead body of Jaspal was dealt with and disposed of raise some suspicion but from these, facts a positive conclusion cannot be reached that he died an unnatural death necessarily, Cases are not unknown where death- is accidental and the accused has acted in a peculiar manner regarding the disposal of the dead body for reasons best known to himself. One of them might well be that he was afraid of a false case being started against him. Life and liberty of persons cannot be put in jeopardy mere suspicions, howsoever strong, and they can only be deprived of these the basis of definite proof. In this case, as found by the High Court, not only were the Sub- Inspector of police and police constables and other witnesses guilty of telling deliberate lies but the prosecution was blameworthy in introducing witnesses in the case to support their lies and that being so, we feel that it would be unsafe to convict the appellant the material that is left after eliminating the perjured,, false and inadmissible evidence."
With such observations, the Hon'ble Supreme Court acquitted the convict appellant.
Page 13
22. Here, I may gainfully refer the following observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Kumar (supra), which are relevant to the facts of the case at hand:
"20. We are afraid, the High Court is not justified in maintaining the conviction under Section 201 only on the ground that no communication was given to the police and that the post-mortem had not been performed. The Trial Court has taken note of the fact that the father of the deceased and her brother (who is a doctor) had attended the last rites of the deceased and neither of them had any complaint or suspicion at that time of the commission of any offence. The Sessions Court has also taken note of the suicide note left by the deceased wherein she had taken the entire blame on herself. Yet the court has taken the view, from the consideration we have extracted from paragraph-16 of the Sessions court judgment, that the deceased might have been in a state of depression having remained alone for most of the time and it amounted to torture. The appellant has been acquitted of the offence under Section 498A by the High Court, and rightly so. The prosecution has also not been able to satisfy the ingredients under Section 201 of the IPC. Neither the Sessions Court nor the High Court has any case that there is any intentional omission to give information by the appellant to the police. It is also to be noted that prosecution has no case under Section 202 of the IPC against the appellant.
21. As held by this Court in Hanuman and others v. State of Rajasthan, the mere fact that the deceased allegedly died an unnatural death could not be sufficient to bring home a charge under Section 201 of the IPC. Unless the prosecution was able to establish that the accused person knew or had reason to believe that an offence has been committed and had done something causing the offence of commission of evidence to disappear, he cannot be convicted.
22. There is no such allegation against the appellant. The last rites of the deceased were performed in the presence of the members of her family. They had no suspicion at that time of the commission of any offence. The private complaint was lodged after more than three months. There is no charge under 1994 Supp (2) SCC 39 Section 202 of the IPC of intentionally omitting to give information of the unnatural death to the police. It is also not the case of the complainant that he had requested for post-mortem of the body and that intimation should have been given to the police before the last rites were performed."
23. Bearing in mind the aforesaid observations and principles followed in disposing of the cases of Palvinder Kaur (supra) and Dinesh Kumar (supra), in the instant case also, it transpires that the method and manner in which the dead body of the victim girl [Priya], was dealt with and disposed, might raise some suspicious circumstances, but, according to this court these facts would not be enough to draw a positive conclusion that the child intentionally or Page 14 unintentionally was given "dao" blow by the appellant no. 2 since there is no direct or indirect evidence that it was the appellant no. 2 who had hit the child by the "dao". Cases are not unknown where such death could be accidental also and the appellants had acted in a peculiar manner regarding disposal of the dead body for the reasons best known to them. One of these might well be that the appellants were afraid of a false case being started against them. Life and liberty of persons cannot be put in jeopardy on mere suspicion, howsoever strong.
24. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hanuman and others v. State of Rajasthan, reported in (1992) supp.2 SCC 39 mere fact that the deceased allegedly died an unnatural death could not be sufficient to bring home a charge under Section 201 of the IPC. Furthermore, the Sessions Court has not framed any charge under Section 202 IPC against the appellants on the ground that there was any intentional omission to give information by the appellants to the police regarding the incident. Unless the prosecution has been able to establish that the appellants knew or had reason to believe that the offence had been committed and had done something causing the offence of commission of evidence to disappear to screen the offender, he cannot be convicted. There is no such evidence surfaced in the present case that the appellant no.1 knew or had reason to believe that his wife, i.e. appellant no. 2 had committed the offence of murder to their child. There is no proof that it was the appellant no. 2 who committed the murder. The prosecution has failed Page 15 to establish that the appellant no. 2 had full knowledge or had reason to believe that she committed the offence of murder to the child and despite such knowledge she tried to conceal the fact and did not supply the correct information to the police. Furthermore, evidence is not enough that the appellant no. 1 having full knowledge of the fact that his wife, the appellant no. 2 had committed the offence of murder to their child intentionally suppressed the said fact and had tried to cause the evidence to disappear by disposing of the dead body only to screen the appellant no. 2 from the offence, as charged against her.
25. On overall consideration of the evidence on record, in my opinion, there are serious shortcomings in the prosecution evidence to bring home the charge of committing offence under Section 201 of the IPC against the appellants. In Dinesh Kumar (supra), the Apex Court has categorically held that the court would not be justified in maintaining the conviction under Section 201 IPC only on the ground that no communication was given to the police and that the post-mortem had not been performed. However, in the present case, postmortem was conducted, but, without any concrete evidence that it was a homicidal death. Of course, the deceased child has faced an unnatural death, but, that is not all. Keeping in view the principles enunciated in Dinesh kumar (supra), in the instant case, conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained only on the ground that the appellants have not intimated the police that their daughter has faced an unnatural death. In this situation, the learned Page 16 trial court has committed serious error in interpreting the ingredients required to establish the offence under Section 201 of the IPC.
26. In the result, the appeal stands allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 26.11.2019 passed in connection with case No. S.T. (Type-I) 31 of 2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Belonia, stand set-aside and quashed.
27. It is informed that the appellants are on bail. Accordingly, the accused- appellants are discharged from the liability of their bail bond and their sureties also are discharged.
Send down the LCRs. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed.
JUDGE Saikat